|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 12, 2021 4:28:08 GMT
The inconsistency when it comes to naming is quite impressive. I would like to congratulate the commission on consigning to the history books Eddisbury and Weaver Vale, plus several of the obscure 1970s local authority names such as Bassetlaw (-> Worksop and Retford), Charnwood (Mid Leicestershire), Halton (split in half across the river), South Lincolnshire instead of the comical South Holland and the Deepings, and I'm particularly pleased that they directly renamed Wyre Forest to Kidderminster and Erewash to Ilkeston and Long Eaton despite there being no boundary changes whatsoever, which is quite unprecedented really. Woodspring to North Somerset in 2010 after very minor changes is a precedent that springs to mind. I'm sure that the 1983 review would throw up some others which saw minor changes but got renamed to match newer local authorities. There seems to be an unwritten rule that the constituency which includes Bermondsey should have its name changed at each review, even if the existing name is fine. Woodspring had disappeared as a local gov't name, though. For a partial parallel to Three Rivers see NE Cambridgeshire and S Suffolk. Both were reduced in territory and thus came to be identical to a district (Fenland, Babergh) but retained their names. SW Hertfordshire was more comprehensively redrawn, but is also not actually identical to Three Rivers district. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 12, 2021 4:55:57 GMT
A few of the renamings seem to fight last review's battles. The year you shrink the seat's non-Corby component to distinctly a lot less than half of it is an odd year to add "& East Northamptonshire", and while a seat extending to Easton should never have been "Bristol West", the new version includes no points east of the very town center.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 12, 2021 10:44:29 GMT
Woodspring to North Somerset in 2010 after very minor changes is a precedent that springs to mind. I'm sure that the 1983 review would throw up some others which saw minor changes but got renamed to match newer local authorities. There seems to be an unwritten rule that the constituency which includes Bermondsey should have its name changed at each review, even if the existing name is fine. Woodspring had disappeared as a local gov't name, though. For a partial parallel to Three Rivers see NE Cambridgeshire and S Suffolk. Both were reduced in territory and thus came to be identical to a district (Fenland, Babergh) but retained their names. SW Hertfordshire was more comprehensively redrawn, but is also not actually identical to Three Rivers district. So 3 Rivers should be SW Hertfordshire, the other [insert two commuter towns which I can’t remember] NW Hertfordshire. Thank goodness Babergh isn’t on the constituency map - how would you even pronounce it? I repeat what I said - it just looks really odd to see (Con, Three Rivers) and (Con, Hedge End) after someone’s name. Not to hate on the towns name so much as it isn’t their fault - it’s not an area I know well, but could they have done better and name it something to do with (Compass point) Hampshire or Eastleigh (compass point)? |
|
|
|
Post by agbutler on Jun 12, 2021 11:30:08 GMT
Did Britain Elects or Electoral Calculus ever post the full details of their notional results?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 12, 2021 11:58:33 GMT
The same is true of the 2 in South Birmingham. What is irritating is that the old ward borders split Kings Heath with the two parts ending up in different constituencies. The new ward borders reunite Kings Heath. So what does the Boundary Commission do? It splits the ward along the old lines. I will definitely be objecting to this. It's difficult when they're starting from such a peculiar map that bears so little resemblance to the geography of Birmingham. Although minimum change is a reasonable starting point, the Commission needs to consider it in the context of past reviews. For example, no-one suggested the Brandwood seat - it was cobbled together by the assistant commissioner as a compromise between competing plans - so neither the Commission nor anyone else (even the MP!) should be trying their hardest to preserve it. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 12, 2021 12:09:47 GMT
In regards to the names I actually don't mind the long unwieldy names, I mean their not great but if we're gonna have a system that facilitates the creation of such uncohesive seats that warrant such names I'd rather they own up to the fact and call the seat "A central, B North and C" rather than papering over the absurd boundaries by invoking some cryptic nonsensical name lifted from the Old Testament that's meaningless to everybody The way things were going I was honestly expecting the commission to propose the seats of "Cranmer's Rest" "Roads to Eboracum" "Danelaw North" and "Scottish Marshes" (bonus points for whoever can guess what those seats modern equivalent would be) The inconsistency when it comes to naming is quite impressive. I would like to congratulate the commission on consigning to the history books Eddisbury and Weaver Vale, plus several of the obscure 1970s local authority names such as Bassetlaw (-> Worksop and Retford), Charnwood (Mid Leicestershire), Halton (split in half across the river), South Lincolnshire instead of the comical South Holland and the Deepings, and I'm particularly pleased that they directly renamed Wyre Forest to Kidderminster and Erewash to Ilkeston and Long Eaton despite there being no boundary changes whatsoever, which is quite unprecedented really. Yet neighbouring Amber Valley remains, Accrington remains Hyndburn, and in other areas well-known names disappear in favour of yet more Little Dribbling and Giggleswick names, particularly in the south. 'Hedge End' sounds like something from fiction (imagine 'Con, Hedge End', after someone's name on the news?), at first glance the town of Reading appears to have shrunk and seemingly is only deserving of one seat when much of it is now 'Early and Woodley'. Same goes for Milton Keynes, Bletchley (and Buckingham) is fair enough as Bletchley is well known in its own right but 'Newport Pagnell' alone could be in Wales for all I know, plus another Shropshire one has been added to the mix. (It should be MK North, MK Central, and MK South and Buckingham,). Headingley is fairly well known in itself but surely an inner city Leeds constituency should at least be preceded with 'Leeds' as other cities are. Otherwise why didn't they also just do 'Edgbaston'? Morley should also just be Leeds South. I really had to zoom into the map to even find Great Wryley even which says it all about its deservedness on the national map - Mid Staffordshire please. Princess Risborough sounds delightful and I'm sure it is but I couldn't tell you where it is, unlike Mid Buckinghamshire. And as for the lengthened names as mentioned above - even that has not been applied consistently - Burton remains Burton and Uttoxeter doesn't get a mention despite what the local MP says. Amusingly Ongar is still in the Brentwood seat but for some reason is no longer deserving of a mention. And while obscure local authority names have been removed in many areas... the ridiculous Three Rivers makes an appearance. How did that happen? You make some good points here, especially about Hedge End (Hamble Valley, surely?), Newport Pagnell, Headingley, Great Wyrley (Stone & Penkridge would be a more sensible name) and Princes Risborough. But I disagree on other points. The new Three Rivers seat is 90% the same as the district, so is perfectly reasonable. Wyre Forest, Erewash and Bassetlaw have hardly changed so neither should the names of the seats. South Holland & The Deepings isn't comical, in fact it's been one of the most beloved seat names. "Eddisbury" I can take or leave since it's not even the name of a local government district, but I expect the name will return from the dead if the "South Cheshire" seat is revised to exclude Over. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 12, 2021 13:21:22 GMT
Also credit where it’s due to the Commission for restoring the ‘Liverpool’ to Garston and the ‘Manchester’ to Blackley (though I maintain Manchester North better represents its diversity) though the latter may not survive unscathed if opposition from the good residents of Alkrington Garden Village (aka Middleton South) is strong enough!
Oh, and forgot to mention, as picturesque sounding as you may be, goodbye to Mole Valley and Meon Valley!
|
|
|
|
Post by peterm on Jun 12, 2021 13:37:27 GMT
Does anyone know how to obtain the Britain Elects proposed constituency notional figures mentioned in the New Statesman? I looked I this week's issue (and last week's) but couldn't find them.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterm on Jun 12, 2021 15:16:05 GMT
Thanks for your comments. Yuo may well be right. It would be useful if it said so. I have seen a map on twitter showing the notional results, but that is all.
I'm surprised there is nothing more (as yet) on Electoral Calculus or indeed anywhere. There is however a very interesting article on the London proposals on the On London site by Lewis Baston.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 12, 2021 18:08:05 GMT
Does anyone know how to obtain the Britain Elects proposed constituency notional figures mentioned in the New Statesman? I looked I this week's issue (and last week's) but couldn't find them. I have a bad feeling it's behind a paywall. The New Statesman is behind a paywall, but so far no detailed figures (save for Esher and Walton) have been published anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 12, 2021 20:32:57 GMT
I have a bad feeling it's behind a paywall. The New Statesman is behind a paywall, but so far no detailed figures (save for Esher and Walton) have been published anywhere. Well it's behind a partial paywall I believe that gives you 4 free articles per month. That's counted by cookies so you can "restart" that by deleting your cookies (which will log you out of accounts if you delete all of them), using a different browser or starting a completely new private/incognito window. But in my view the New Statesman's work on this and their collation of local election results and data journalism is worth a subscription in itself - journalism does cost money and we should support it. |
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on Jun 12, 2021 21:46:21 GMT
Well it's behind a partial paywall I believe that gives you 4 free articles per month. That's counted by cookies so you can "restart" that by deleting your cookies (which will log you out of accounts if you delete all of them), using a different browser or starting a completely new private/incognito window. But in my view the New Statesman's work on this and their collation of local election results and data journalism is worth a subscription in itself - journalism does cost money and we should support it. I buy the paper version of the New Statesman every so often — perhaps 4 or 5 times a year. But doing so probably won't give me access to the boundary stuff. OK - I got this wrong  ! As usual - I should have checked! The New Statesman operate a model where you register your email and you can get 4 articles for free a month (not counting via cookies). You can also I find read the article by clicking on "immersive reader" in the Edge browser - this strips out graphics etc. (Other browsers have a similar facility I believe!) - and this also seem to work for the Daily Telegraph site. But I do re-iterate my plea to support journalism and it is particularly helpful and good that the New Statesman are employing Ben Walker to do this excellent data work - well worth a subscription! On the nominal results - there are as far as I can see only two articles on the New Statesman site: www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2021/06/conservatives-and-lib-dems-set-gain-english-boundary-changes-notional and www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2021/06/who-are-winners-and-losers-new-parliamentary-boundary-changeswhich as mentioned gives their figures for Esher and Walton (and as mentioned AFAIK the only seat where they have given figures) of LD 48.1% Con 47.2% Lab 4.3% This includes a map but only the new result but not any detailed figures of voting percentages as far as I can see. In the June 8th article they did promise "Our overall projection of what the new boundaries mean, complete with seat-by-seat vote shares, will be published tomorrow." but as far as I can see they haven't published the vote shares unless I have missed it - it does seem well-hidden and as far as I can see it hasn't been highlighted on the Britain Elects twitter feed. These are the seats it mentions as changing hands: Seat Result on old boundaries Result on new boundaries Peterborough Con Lab South Cambridgeshire Con LDem Finchley and Muswell Hill Con LDem Hendon and Golders Green Con Lab Kensington and Westbourne Con Lab Wimbledon Con LDem Eltham and Chislehurst Lab Con Kingston upon Hull East Lab Con Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle Lab Con Doncaster Town Lab Con Rawmarsh and Conisbrough Con Lab Sheffield Hallam Lab LDem Wakefield Con Lab Batley and Hipperholme Lab Con Halifax Lab Con Calder Valley Con Lab Pudsey Con Lab Leeds North West Lab Con Dewsbury Con Lab Lancaster Lab Con Wirral West Lab Con Whitley Bay and Cramlington Con Lab Esher and Walton Con LDem Wolverhampton West Con Lab Walsall Lab Con Stoke-on-Trent Central Con Lab Wolverhampton South East Lab Con West Bromwich East Con Lab |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jun 13, 2021 7:07:17 GMT
]You make some good points here, especially about Hedge End (Hamble Valley, surely?), Newport Pagnell, Headingley, Great Wyrley (Stone & Penkridge would be a more sensible name) and Princes Risborough. But I disagree on other points. The new Three Rivers seat is 90% the same as the district, so is perfectly reasonable. Wyre Forest, Erewash and Bassetlaw have hardly changed so neither should the names of the seats. South Holland & The Deepings isn't comical, in fact it's been one of the most beloved seat names. "Eddisbury" I can take or leave since it's not even the name of a local government district, but I expect the name will return from the dead if the "South Cheshire" seat is revised to exclude Over. We're not all going to agree on names, are we... I don't think obscure 1970s district names are a good basis for constituency names, and "Three Rivers" is particularly bad: it could be anywhere. At least I know which river "Erewash" refers to and that tells me roughly where the constituency is. I don't mind using the names of modest sized settlements, and don't think Princes Risborough (NB not "Princess") is actually that obscure, so am fine with that, although I'd been going with "West Buckinghamshire" (definitely not "Mid") for a similar seat. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 13, 2021 8:33:15 GMT
]You make some good points here, especially about Hedge End (Hamble Valley, surely?), Newport Pagnell, Headingley, Great Wyrley (Stone & Penkridge would be a more sensible name) and Princes Risborough. But I disagree on other points. The new Three Rivers seat is 90% the same as the district, so is perfectly reasonable. Wyre Forest, Erewash and Bassetlaw have hardly changed so neither should the names of the seats. South Holland & The Deepings isn't comical, in fact it's been one of the most beloved seat names. "Eddisbury" I can take or leave since it's not even the name of a local government district, but I expect the name will return from the dead if the "South Cheshire" seat is revised to exclude Over. We're not all going to agree on names, are we... I don't think obscure 1970s district names are a good basis for constituency names, and "Three Rivers" is particularly bad: it could be anywhere. At least I know which river "Erewash" refers to and that tells me roughly where the constituency is. I don't mind using the names of modest sized settlements, and don't think Princes Risborough (NB not "Princess") is actually that obscure, so am fine with that, although I'd been going with "West Buckinghamshire" (definitely not "Mid") for a similar seat. I don’t understand the opposition to Princes Risborough either, sounds perfectly reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 13, 2021 19:17:21 GMT
The Commission seems to have gone generally for the several good seats plus one disastrous bits left over, rather than many suboptimal seats. Always an interesting choice. Disasters here include Stone & Great Wyrley, West Pennine Moors, Wetherby & Easingwold, “City of Durham”, Fallsworth & Droylsden, and of course the continuing Central Devon.
In London they have done the opposite, and avoided any dreadful seats at the cost of large numbers of suboptimal ones.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 14, 2021 8:40:04 GMT
Britain Elects to release full notional calculations (and a change to the headline number) no later than Wednesday morning
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Jun 14, 2021 18:09:52 GMT
I think this is a full list of the split wards. None in East or North East. West Northamptonshire, Silverstone North Northamptonshire, Finedon North Northamptonshire, Irchester Wandsworth, Fairfield Croydon, Waddon Havering, Hylands South Lakeland, Bowness & Levens Manchester, Miles Platting & Newton Heath Wirral, Upton Basingstoke and Deane, Oakley & The Candovers Buckinghamshire, Chiltern Ridges West Berkshire, Downlands Plymouth, Peverell Birmingham, Brandwood & King's Heath Birmingham, Weoley & Selly Oak Sandwell, Blackheath Kirklees, Dalton Leeds, Gipton & Harehills Sheffield, Richmond This is really useful.
So - 19 in all. That is rather more than I was expecting.
And I am prepared to enter into a friendly low-stake (i.e. no-stake) wager with anyone on the forum that the eventual number will be significantly higher. We've already seen in some suggestions on the forum that the availability of ward splits means that it's possible to suggest improvements to the BCE scheme that involve relatively minor tweaks, shifting part of a ward only and affecting only two seats, thus avoiding the 'ripple effect' of knock-on changes that tend to result if only whole wards can be moved. The scope for this kind of 'fine tuning' is potentially a major advantage of allowing ward splits, which is why I expect the number to increase substantially as a result of the consultation process.
It also, however, creates a temptation for political parties to try to tip the scales in marginal seats by proposing the addition (or removal) of pockets of perceived support (or opposition), without having to shift whole wards. I can only express the hope that BCE will be alert to this.
I think there's a case for more ward splits in those areas where the commission has used the old ward boundaries where nw ones have been signed off by the LGBC since the Westminster review started - that way they don't have to have a mini-review to realign constituencies with local government wards in five or ten year's time. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 14, 2021 18:40:09 GMT
]You make some good points here, especially about Hedge End (Hamble Valley, surely?), Newport Pagnell, Headingley, Great Wyrley (Stone & Penkridge would be a more sensible name) and Princes Risborough. But I disagree on other points. The new Three Rivers seat is 90% the same as the district, so is perfectly reasonable. Wyre Forest, Erewash and Bassetlaw have hardly changed so neither should the names of the seats. South Holland & The Deepings isn't comical, in fact it's been one of the most beloved seat names. "Eddisbury" I can take or leave since it's not even the name of a local government district, but I expect the name will return from the dead if the "South Cheshire" seat is revised to exclude Over. We're not all going to agree on names, are we... I don't think obscure 1970s district names are a good basis for constituency names, and "Three Rivers" is particularly bad: it could be anywhere. At least I know which river "Erewash" refers to and that tells me roughly where the constituency is. "Three Rivers" is a 2021 district name, and not obscure if you live in Herts or Bucks. The fact that it's not to your taste is irrelevant. 95% of the UK population couldn't tell you where Harpenden or Berkhamsted is, so this ongoing argument about salience is pretty pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 14, 2021 18:48:35 GMT
The Commission seems to have gone generally for the several good seats plus one disastrous bits left over, rather than many suboptimal seats. Always an interesting choice. Disasters here include Stone & Great Wyrley, West Pennine Moors, Wetherby & Easingwold, “City of Durham”, Fallsworth & Droylsden, and of course the continuing Central Devon. In London they have done the opposite, and avoided any dreadful seats at the cost of large numbers of suboptimal ones. Out of curiosity, what's your problem with "City of Durham"?
It's not quite as cohesive a constituency as the old one, but Houghton and Durham have good links. Historically, Houghton-le-Spring has always been out on a limb in Tyne and Wear, with better connections to areas further south in the Durham coalfield, and nowadays there are increasing numbers of commuters between the two. In an ideal world Durham would keep its western and southern villages but if these have to be moved to bulk up the two west Durham seats, then a solution like what they've proposed is perfectly fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 14, 2021 18:51:35 GMT
I've long known where Three Rivers is (Watford Outer, including Arthur Dent's home in Rickmansworth) but I just noticed I have never bothered to find out what three rivers the name actually refers to, not that it is the only district whose name is obscure to me (Hambleton? Wychavon? South Hams? Uttlesford? Elmbridge? Tandridge? Hillingdon? for a selection of the worst surviving offenders) I certainly don't associate the area with any rivers.
|
|
! As usual - I should have checked! The New Statesman operate a model where you register your email and you can get 4 articles for free a month (not counting via cookies). You can also I find read the article by clicking on "immersive reader" in the Edge browser - this strips out graphics etc. (Other browsers have a similar facility I believe!) - and this also seem to work for the Daily Telegraph site. But I do re-iterate my plea to support journalism and it is particularly helpful and good that the New Statesman are employing Ben Walker to do this excellent data work - well worth a subscription!
